I watched a CNN debate last night between a rabbi and a Muslim college professor and I’ve got to say, the rabbi made some good points while the professor made a really bad impression.
The rabbi was saying that, given everything that’s been going on, one would expect a more active response to fundamentalists from moderate, non-fundamentalist Muslims. Everybody is waiting for an active and loud repudiation of the fanatics on the part of mainstream Muslims. But there hasn’t been one. Everything interesting and meaningful that I have read online, seen on TV and heard in person on the subject of Charlie Hebdo came from non-Muslims. The only interesting pieces on whether the attacks are related to Islam, honestly, came from me. All I’ve seen and heard from Muslims on the subject was the sulky, “The cartoonists were insulting my identity, so why should I be on their side?” (this was a tweet somebody linked to that made me cringe with disgust.) I’m not denying the possibility that moderate Muslims are saying more valuable and insightful things than this infantile bit of extreme idiocy but they are not getting the message out very well. And I was glad to hear the rabbi finally state the painfully obvious: we are all waiting. Give us something here.
The Muslim professor unfortunately chose to take the position of sulky infantilism, as well. His position was “But why do we have to give any explanations if we haven’t done anything?” As a professor, I’m sure he is well aware of how silly this approach is. The Pope apologized for the Inquisition he obviously didn’t contribute to. The King of Spain apologized for the expulsion of the Jews that wasn’t even perpetrated by his royal family. This had been done several royal families away and many centuries earlier, yet he still apologized. Germans are paying reparations to Jews and Ukrainians, even though neither Merkel nor today’s German taxpayers are guilty of the Holocaust.
I can’t imagine a situation where people would come to me asking me to explain what is going on in Ukraine and I’d adopt a pouty expression and respond, in a petulant voice, that I don’t see why I have to explain anything and that all Ukrainians are different. As a Russian-speaker, I’ve been doing nothing but repudiating Putinoids and distancing myself from the Russian neo-fascism. And I don’t think that it’s somehow beneath me to do that. And by the way, unlike a religious identity, the linguistic identity can’t be chosen, changed, or abandoned.
The rabbi obviously won the debate. Here is an excerpt from his article:
We rightly don’t wish to identify Islam as an inherently violent religion. I have repeatedly argued against this belief and brought proofs from history. We don’t want to tar regular, everyday G-d fearing Muslims who simply wish to observe their faith in peace with a violent brush. . .
What we have every right to expect is that Muslims of every stripe and denomination condemn violence in the name of Islam, dismiss Imams who promote violence, and cast out any and all Islamic voices who call for bloodletting in Islam’s name. The time has come for a coordinated world march—by Muslims—against Islamic violence. If 30,000 Muslims can march in the streets of Paris and London last summer to condemn Israel, then surely they can also march to condemn violence in Islam’s name. Imagine the impact of a million Muslims marching in New York, London, Paris, and Jerusalem to condemn all violence in the name of Islam. Imagine the statement it would make to whose who seek to hijack Islam and turn it violent.
I think Rabbi Shmuley is definitely on to something here. Islam used to be a great religion with an enormous civilizational potential that prevented Europe from sliding completely into barbarity. Muslims gave the Western civilization back to the West after it was almost entirely lost. And that is an enormous gift of historic significance. And now Islam is being hijacked by a small minority of vicious cannibals while nobody seems to do anything productive about it.